The Tech For Good Institute (TFGI) brought together voices from across Southeast Asia (SEA) for the third roundtable discussion in its New Models of Work series, focusing on International Remote Work. The event aimed to explore the profound implications of cross-border work in a world where technology enables borderless opportunities, but governance structures remain rooted in national boundaries.

The rise of international remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has enabled workers in SEA to participate in global labour markets without relocating. A software developer in Manila can now work for a startup in San Francisco while living at home. A freelance designer in Kuala Lumpur can serve clients in London while paying local rent. For the first time in human history, the geography of opportunity began to decouple from the geography of residence.

However, this shift brings both opportunities and challenges. When international wages flow into local economies, they can reshape rental markets, shift community norms, and raise important questions around taxation, worker protection, and economic fairness. What may seem like empowerment for individual workers introduces complex governance dilemmas for communities and institutions. For example, when an Indonesian developer earns Silicon Valley wages while living in a neighbourhood where the median income is measured in hundreds rather than thousands of dollars per month, her economic choices ripple across her community, affecting the price of goods, rental markets, and the perceptions of middle-class standards. These changes raise critical questions: how do governments, businesses, and communities adapt to these shifts?

The discussion underscored a recurring insight in the roundtable series: technological transformation is outpacing policy adaptation. As SEA continues to navigate the future of work, new approaches are needed—ones that recognise the transnational realities of today’s workforce while ensuring fairness, protection, and shared prosperity.

Moderators and Participants

• Theodore Sutarto, Assistant Deputy of Digital Economy, Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (CMEA), Indonesia
• Seah Lee Mui, Director of New Operations Division, Workforce Singapore, Ministry of Manpower (MoM), Singapore
• Muhammad Farhan Hizami, Senior Manager, Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDEC)
• Pieter Parmentier, Science, Technology, and Innovation Lead, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
• Daniel Schröder, Head of Digital Transformation Center, Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ)
• Widya Listyowulan, Director of Government Affairs, Microsoft Indonesia
• Camelia Loh, Founder & CEO, Kabel Malaysia
• Le-an Lai Lacaba, Co-Founder and CEO, 2xYou, The Philippines
• Nguyen Quang Dong, Director, Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development (IPS), Vietnam
• Poon King Wang, Director of LKYCIC, Singapore University of Technology & Design (SUTD)
• Nelia Hyndman-Rizk, Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Canberra, Australia
• Aries Setiadi, Researcher, Centre for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS)
• Nopphasin Camapaso, Researcher, Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
• Citra Handayani Nasruddin, Programme Director, Tech For Good Institute (TFGI)
• Arifah Sharifuddin, Operations Director, Tech For Good Institute (TFGI)
• Basilio Claudio, Programme Associate, Tech For Good Institute (TFGI)

Key Takeaways

1. International remote work and digital nomadism are distinct phenomena with different implications for labour rights, taxation, and economic impact; thus, policies must reflect these differences

The need for more precise definitions has emerged as a critical policy priority across Southeast Asia. Discussions revealed that the absence of standardised terminology creates regulatory gaps that serve no one’s interests effectively. While the distinction between remote workers and digital nomads might initially seem semantic, it reveals fundamental differences in how we approach policy development.

Remote workers typically maintain traditional employment relationships, characterised by fixed schedules, regular coordination, and established employer obligations that align reasonably well with existing labour frameworks. Digital nomads operate more entrepreneurially, crossing borders multiple times annually while managing diverse client relationships and creating independent schedules. The key distinction lies in autonomy over mobility and location choice; while remote workers often have their location decisions dictated by employers, digital nomads embrace self-determined mobility practices. They function more like contemporary merchants, except their commodity is specialised expertise.

This definitional clarity is crucial because international remote work has significant potential to support tourism development across the region. Countries like Vietnam recognise that remote work can leverage their growing tourism sectors to develop digital nomad ecosystems, creating economic pathways that simultaneously attract foreign investment and generate new opportunities for local businesses.

However, the definitional challenge runs deeper than categorisation. Thailand’s Destination Thailand Visa (DTV), which requires 500,000 THB in savings and proof of remote employment, illustrates a more accessible approach than initially assumed, though most digital nomads still navigate through tourist visa frameworks, creating legally uncertain circumstances that serve limited stakeholder interests.

This categorical ambiguity reflects more profound uncertainties about the nature of economic activity being observed. The distinction between emerging entrepreneurship and geographically distributed employment carries substantial implications for taxation frameworks, social protection systems, and economic development strategies.

2. Cross-border remote work is reshaping global labour markets, creating opportunities for talent export but also raising challenges for local economies

In remote work is revealing both opportunities and challenges. The country produces hundreds of thousands of university graduates each year, yet sees fewer high-skilled employment opportunities, resulting in a supply-demand imbalance. Simultaneously, Malaysian businesses are increasingly hiring international freelance talent, exporting job opportunities, while local talent faces limited prospects. This dynamic reflects a broader shift across the region, where skills and work transcend national borders, but local economies often struggle to adapt to these changes.

The shift also reshapes local communities. In remote work hubs across SEA, the influx of internationally paid professionals can drive up the cost of living, particularly in services and housing, sometimes accelerating gentrification. Yet, they contribute economically as consumers, taxpayers, and valuable channels for knowledge sharing. In the Philippines, remote work has enabled a reimagining of family life, allowing many parents to access global job opportunities while remaining at home, thereby offering a more sustainable alternative to traditional labour migration models.

To harness the benefits of cross-border remote work while addressing potential challenges, it is essential to focus on key policy areas, including social protection, taxation, and equitable access to public services. Instruments such as targeted visas for foreign professionals, rental control policies, and mandatory contributions to local social schemes can help mitigate risks. At the same time, investments in digital infrastructure and local upskilling are crucial to ensure inclusive progress, close persistent skills gaps, and support a more sustainable digital transition.

3. Governments need clear regulatory frameworks and best practices to integrate international remote workers while ensuring fairness, labour rights, and economic competitiveness

Across SEA, governments are starting to address the policy implications of cross-border remote work, though current regulatory frameworks remain fragmented. Singapore, for example, is in an evaluation phase for non-standard work categories. In contrast, Indonesia has adopted tourism-oriented policies that address, but do not fully address, longer-term settlement issues.

This fragmentation has created significant gaps with real-world consequences. Remote workers often find themselves without adequate medical coverage, relying on ad hoc emergency support from fellow nomads rather than systematic protections. Sudden policy changes, such as the Philippines’ recent introduction of 12% value-added taxes on digital tools, can disrupt established business models overnight. Meanwhile, cross-border technology arrangements remain largely in grey areas that lack clear regulatory guidance, and avoiding double taxation has become a critical concern for mobile professionals navigating multiple jurisdictions.

For policymakers, prioritising worker protection and fairness must be central to any framework development, ensuring that the benefits of remote work don’t come at the expense of worker rights or social protections.

Supporting remote work requires infrastructure that extends far beyond connectivity. While digital infrastructure is foundational, clarity in visa processes and fiscal responsibilities is equally crucial. Human capital development is also essential. Remote professionals need to possess digital literacy, financial management, and entrepreneurial skills to succeed. Gender dynamics further underscore the need for thoughtful policy, as remote work has opened up more flexible pathways for women, particularly in balancing paid work and caregiving. Meanwhile, nomadic workers often reflect distinct demographic profiles. Notably, research shows that professionals in collaborative teams demonstrate greater resilience than independent freelancers in competitive global markets.

Rather than competing for the same talent, SEA countries could benefit from the type of regional coordination discussed in the roundtable, particularly the regional baseline framework suggested during discussions, which would provide comparative guidance on visa requirements, tax obligations, and worker protections across ASEAN countries. Achieving this requires coordinated action across immigration, tax, labour, and economic policy domains. Without such coordination, SEA may face regulatory mismatches, deepen inequality, and miss opportunities to realise the benefits of cross-border remote work fully.